Elgin County Greenway Mapping Methodology

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Elgin County Greenway Mapping Methodology Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan Prepared by Jarmo Jalava, Stanley Caveney, Mark Carabetta, Daria Koscinski, Rhonda Donley and the Elgin Greenway CAP Development Team Carolinian Canada Coalition In partnership with Ontario Nature & the Thames Talbot Land Trust Assistance for this project was provided by the Government of Ontario and Environment Environnement Canada Canada Habitat Stewardship Program for Species At Risk i Recommended citation: Jalava, J.V., S. Caveney, M. Carabetta, D. Koscinski, R. Donley and the Elgin Greenway CAP Development Team. 2012. Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan. Carolinian Canada Coalition, London, Ontario. x + 53 pp. + appendices. Cover photo © John St. Pierre ii Table of Contents Plan Authors, CAP Team and Contributors .................................................................... iv i. Background & Rationale ............................................................................................. vi 1. Conservation Context....................................................................................................1 i. Geographic Context .......................................................................................................1 ii. Historical, Cultural and Socioeconomic Context .........................................................2 iii. Ecological Context ......................................................................................................4 iv. Natural Cover / Ecosystem Types .............................................................................10 v. Dominant Environmental Processes ...........................................................................13 vi. Significant Species .....................................................................................................17 2. Biodiversity Targets and Associated Threats .............................................................22 i. Conservation Targets ...................................................................................................22 ii. Threats ........................................................................................................................26 3. Objectives and Strategies ............................................................................................39 i. Conservation Objectives ..............................................................................................39 ii. Strategic Actions and Action Steps ............................................................................41 References .......................................................................................................................52 Appendix A. Elgin County Greenway Mapping Methodology ......................................54 Appendix B. Natural Heritage Designations ..................................................................57 Appendix C. Recommended Activities in Selected SAR Recovery Strategies ..............60 Appendix D. Species-specific Threats to Elgin Greenway SAR ....................................63 List of Figures Figure 1.1. General location of the Elgin Greenway CAP Area .......................................1 Figure 1.2. Elgin Greenway CAP Area. ..........................................................................6 Figure 1.3. Kettle Creek, one of several creeks…that drain into Lake Erie .....................7 Figure 1.4. Rapidly eroding bluffs along the Lake Erie shoreline ....................................9 Figure 1.5. Deciduous forest at Bayham Ravine, East Elgin ..........................................11 Figure 1.6. Clearville Creek ............................................................................................15 Figure 1.7. Topography and major streams in the Elgin Greenway CAP area. ..............16 Figure 1.8. The threatened False Rue-anemone ..............................................................17 Figure 1.9. Roads fragment habitat and cause animal mortality .....................................26 List of Tables Table 1.1. Summary of Population Information in the Elgin Greenway CAP area ..........3 Table 1.2. Natural Heritage Designations – Elgin Greenway CAP area ........................10 Table 1.3. Globally and Provincially Rare Vegetation Communities ............................12 Table 1.4. Significant Species – Elgin Greenway CAP Area .........................................17 Table 1.5. Conservation Targets .....................................................................................22 Table 1.6. Conservation Target Viability .......................................................................24 Table 1.7. Summary of Threats – Elgin Greenway CAP ...............................................27 Table 1.8. Additional Comments on Sources of Threats ...............................................33 iii Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan (CAP) PLAN AUTHOR(S) Name Role Organization Email Jalava, Jarmo Coordinator, Ecosystem Carolinian Canada Coalition [email protected] Recovery Program Caveney, Stanley Past President Thames Talbot Land Trust [email protected] Carabetta, Mark Conservation Science Manager Ontario Nature Donley, Rhonda Conservation Action Planning Carolinian Canada Coalition [email protected] Daria Koscinski Conservation Action Planning Carolinian Canada Coalition [email protected] CAP Team and Contributors: Ron Allenson, Otter Valley Field Naturalists Irene Bouris, St. Thomas Field Naturalists Club Jane Bowles, Thames Talbot Land Trust Amber Cowie, Ontario Nature Mark Carabetta, Ontario Nature Ron Casier, Elgin Stewardship Council / St. Thomas Field Naturalists Club Stan Caveney, Thames Talbot Land Trust Eric Cleland, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources / Elgin Stewardship Council Chris Dancey, National Farmers Union Graham Decow, Elgin Stewardship Council Tony Difazio, Catfish Creek Conservation Authority Rhonda Donley, Carolinian Canada Coalition Jennifer Dow, Kettle Creek Conservation Authority Dan Dufour, Carolinian Canada Coalition Cliff Evanitski, Long Point Region Conservation Authority Steve Evans, Elgin County Paul Gagnon, Long Point Region Conservation Authority John Glass, Otter Valley Field Naturalists Don Gordon, Thames Talbot Land Trust Ron Gould, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Jarmo Jalava, Carolinian Canada Coalition Catherine Jong, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Don Miller, Elgin Federation of Agriculture Said Mohamed, Carolinian Canada Coalition Cathy Quinlan, Thames Talbot Land Trust Kim Smale, Catfish Creek Conservation Authority Joe Stephenson, Otter Valley Field Naturalists Steve Timmermans, Thames Talbot Land Trust Valerie Towsley, Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority Brian Widner, Kettle Creek Conservation Authority Joshua Wise, Ontario Nature CAP Team members indicated in bold. iv The following individuals or organisations have contributed to the development of the Elgin Greenway CAP, but have not attended the workshops: Wendy Cridland, The Nature Conservancy of Canada Jerry Campbell, Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority Mark Emery, Elgin Stewardship Council Roberta Gillard, Elgin Federation of Agriculture Andrea Hebb, The Nature Conservancy of Canada Megan Ihrig, Carolinian Canada Coalition John St. Pierre Ed Ketchabaw, Elgin Federation of Agriculture Elizabeth Van Hooren, Kettle Creek Conservation Authority Thank you to the CAP team and contributors. v Elgin Greenway Conservation Action Plan ELGIN GREENWAY CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN i. BACKGROUND & RATIONALE Conservation Action Planning in Canada’s Carolinian Life Zone Elgin County is situated in the heart of Ecoregion 7E, an area extending from Toronto to Grand Bend, south to Niagara Falls and the western Lake Erie islands. This ecoregion is colloquially known as Canada’s “Carolinian life zone”, or simply “Carolinian Canada” because many plants and animals found in the eastern United States as far south as the Carolinas reach their northern limit in this part of Ontario. The Carolinian life zone occupies less than 0.25% of Canada’s landmass, yet it provides habitat for over 40% of Canada’s plant species and an equally large proportion of vertebrate and invertebrate fauna. At the same time, one quarter of Canada’s human population lives in the region, the nation’s industrial and economic heartland. As a result, extensive conversion to human land uses has occurred. In southern Ontario, 94% of upland forests were cleared over the past two centuries, while more than 70% of all pre- settlement wetlands have been converted, and up to 99% of prairies and savannahs have been lost. On a heavily-modified working landscape such as this, habitat fragmentation has reduced most natural areas to sizes much smaller than is required to maintain basic ecological functions and diverse, resilient biological communities. Overall, natural cover across the Carolinian life zone now ranges from less than 7% in some areas to below 18% in others, with Elgin County falling between these two extremes. These high levels of land conversion mean that many of the essential ecological processes needed for healthy soils, clean water and clean air have been severely compromised. For these reasons, combined with the fact that many of the species found here are near the northern limits of their distribution, the ecoregion has the greatest number and concentration of Species At Risk (SAR) in Canada. At least 50 of them occur in Elgin County. More than 500 additional plant and animal species found in the zone are recognized to be at some level of
Recommended publications
  • Rank of Pops
    Table 1.3 Basic Pop Trends County by County Census 2001 - place names pop_1996 pop_2001 % diff rank order absolute 1996-01 Sorted by absolute pop growth on growth pop growth - Canada 28,846,761 30,007,094 1,160,333 4.0 - Ontario 10,753,573 11,410,046 656,473 6.1 - York Regional Municipality 1 592,445 729,254 136,809 23.1 - Peel Regional Municipality 2 852,526 988,948 136,422 16.0 - Toronto Division 3 2,385,421 2,481,494 96,073 4.0 - Ottawa Division 4 721,136 774,072 52,936 7.3 - Durham Regional Municipality 5 458,616 506,901 48,285 10.5 - Simcoe County 6 329,865 377,050 47,185 14.3 - Halton Regional Municipality 7 339,875 375,229 35,354 10.4 - Waterloo Regional Municipality 8 405,435 438,515 33,080 8.2 - Essex County 9 350,329 374,975 24,646 7.0 - Hamilton Division 10 467,799 490,268 22,469 4.8 - Wellington County 11 171,406 187,313 15,907 9.3 - Middlesex County 12 389,616 403,185 13,569 3.5 - Niagara Regional Municipality 13 403,504 410,574 7,070 1.8 - Dufferin County 14 45,657 51,013 5,356 11.7 - Brant County 15 114,564 118,485 3,921 3.4 - Northumberland County 16 74,437 77,497 3,060 4.1 - Lanark County 17 59,845 62,495 2,650 4.4 - Muskoka District Municipality 18 50,463 53,106 2,643 5.2 - Prescott and Russell United Counties 19 74,013 76,446 2,433 3.3 - Peterborough County 20 123,448 125,856 2,408 2.0 - Elgin County 21 79,159 81,553 2,394 3.0 - Frontenac County 22 136,365 138,606 2,241 1.6 - Oxford County 23 97,142 99,270 2,128 2.2 - Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Municipality 24 102,575 104,670 2,095 2.0 - Perth County 25 72,106 73,675
    [Show full text]
  • Kettle Creek Watershed Characterization Report DRAFT
    Kettle Creek Watershed Characterization Report DRAFT January 2008 Prepared by: Lake Erie Source Protection Region Technical Team Kettle Creek Watershed Characterization Report January 2008 – Revision 2.0 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Kettle Creek Source Protection Area.................................................................1 1.2 Lake Erie Source Protection Region .................................................................4 1.3 Watershed Partners and Stakeholders..............................................................6 1.3.1 Municipalities .............................................................................................6 1.3.2 Kettle Creek Conservation Authority .........................................................6 2.0 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION................................................................................. 11 2.1 Bedrock Geology.............................................................................................11 2.2 Physiography and Quaternary Geology ..........................................................13 2.2.1 Mount Elgin Ridges .................................................................................13 2.2.2 Ekfird Clay Plain ......................................................................................13 2.2.3 Norfolk Sand Plain...................................................................................14 2.2.4 Quaternary Geology ................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Norfolk County State of the Environment Poster
    Long Point Region Grand River Conservation 20 CON 1 Six Nations IND IAN LI Conservation Authority Authority NE CON 2 C O C K S H U T O T AD L R D O O H A I D D R G H OR W F T A Y Brant County N A 2 CON 3 4 Kelvin BR Bealton H I G H Wilsonville ST W 19 EA AY K 2 COUNTY ROAD R EL CON 1 FOLK O 4 NOR V AD IN Boston C CON 4 O U N T Y LI NE 9 EAST Grand River CON 2 OAD 1 LK COUNTY R NORFO 19 Conservation Authority 1 25 2 C CON 5 O 74 3 C K 4 S H H U 5 I T G T 6 H W R O CON 3 O K 7 AY LD A EL Vanessa 24 D 2 V H 4 8 E 23 I S N RO T I Bill's Corners (Nanticoke) W 19 GH 9 ROAD 22 UNTY 10 K CO W 21 A FOL OR AY D 11 N 2 20 12 4 CON 6 19 Long Point Region 13 18 14 17 15 15 16 E CON 4 S T Conservation Authority W 17 D 19 14 TY ROA COUN 13 18 FOLK NOR T 12 E 19 E T 11 E 20 R V 10 21 IL L 9 CON 7 22 RE O 23 A 8 D 24 D 7 A O 6 R RD 5 FO 4 CONNT 5 3 Teeterville RA State of the Environment B 2 1 M A I N S CON 8 T R E Villa Nova E T H T N H R I O G OAD EAST H SON R W M THOMP AY CON 6 A Waterford I 2 N 4 S T Forestry and Carolinian Canada R E E Legend T H S T O U CON 9 TEETERVILLE RO LPRCA Land THOMPSON Norfolk County has approximately 24 per cent forest cover with CON 7 9 24 ROAD EAST EST MPSON ROAD W more in the western end of Norfolk versus the east.
    [Show full text]
  • Aylmer Express Presents the Eighth Annual Three Port Tour
    AYLMER EXPRESS PRESENTS THE EIGHTH ANNUAL THREE PORT TOUR SATURDAY, AUGUST 18, 2018 Three routes to suit all levels of cyclists – from entry level to challenging: SouthwesternSouthwestern Ontario’sOntario’s One Port Two Ports Three Ports BBestest RideRide 50 km 100 km 160 km Beautiful Elgin County 3 Supported Routes Lakeshore & Countryside with Lunch, Snacks & Drinks starting & finishing in Aylmer sourced from local businesses & farms For only • Route map • Coffee, muffins & fruit • Rest stop snacks & drinks $$ • Lunch in Port Bruce 6565 • T-Shirt (before August 7) you get all • Road support provided of this: along the route Sign Up Today at threeporttour.com Contact Brett Hueston for more information AYLMER 519.697.0018 · 1.800.465.9433 · [email protected] EXPRESS Proceeds to EESS Environmental Leadership Program and Forest City Velodrome Over $75,000 donated since 2011 Aylmer · Port Burwell · Port Bruce · Port Stanley SouthwesternSouthwestern Ontario’sOntario’s BBestest RideRide Third Saturday in August www.threeporttour.com Wed., July 4, 2018–AYLMER EXPRESS–PAGE 5 Hueston trial adjourned until Aug. 15 CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 that day: information from a porter. present included a Charter of gating OPP officer. fire chief and the “media officer All three of the officers were Rights and Freedoms applica- Why it took a year for those of the OPP.” asked by Justice Donald if they tion. notes to be released as disclo- The new date for the tri- would be available on Aug. 15 Justice Donald addressed sure by the Crown attorney’s al of Wednesday, Aug. 15 was to which they indicated they the Huestons in granting the office was not explained.
    [Show full text]
  • June 19, 2017 Ms. Kirsten Walli Board Secretary Ontario Energy Board
    June 19, 2017 Ms. Kirsten Walli Board Secretary Ontario Energy Board 2300 Yonge Street, 27th Floor Toronto, ON M4P 1E4 Dear Ms. Walli: Re: Overlapping Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity Board File Number: EB-2017-0108 Further to discussions with Board Staff regarding the May 30, 2017 request of Union Gas to provide confidential treatment to any facilities map that has been provided to the Board as part of applications related to franchise agreements and Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity, attached is a revised application regarding the applied-for Certificate amendments Norfolk County, the County of Elgin and the County of Middlesex which contains a redacted, public version of Union’s service area map. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, [Original signed by] Patrick McMahon Manager, Regulatory Research and Records [email protected] (519) 436-5325 Encl. P.O. Box 2001, 50 Keil Drive North, Chatham, ON, N7M 5M1 www.uniongas.com Union Gas Limited On August 19, 2016, Union was directed by the Ontario Energy Board to file a report by December 31, 2016 confirming that Union has obtained Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity covering the geographic areas in which its facilities are located. If during its investigation facilities are found to be located in areas where it does not hold Certificate rights, Union is to advise the Board as to where the infrastructure is located and to provide a plan to rectify the situation. In its report to the Board dated December 22, 2016, Union identified Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity held by Union and Natural Resource Gas (NRG) that were overlapping.
    [Show full text]
  • Quaternary Geology of the Tillsonburg Area, Southern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Report 220, 87P
    ISSN 0704-2582 ISBN 0-7743-6983-3 THESE TERMS GOVERN YOUR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT Your use of this Ontario Geological Survey document (the "Content") is governed by the terms set out on this page ("Terms of Use"). By downloading this Content, you (the "User") have accepted, and have agreed to be bound by, the Terms of Use. Content: This Content is offered by the Province of Ontario's Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (MNDM) as a public service, on an "as-is" basis. Recommendations and statements of opinion expressed in the Content are those of the author or authors and are not to be construed as statement of government policy. You are solely responsible for your use of the Content. You should not rely on the Content for legal advice nor as authoritative in your particular circumstances. Users should verify the accuracy and applicability of any Content before acting on it. MNDM does not guarantee, or make any warranty express or implied, that the Content is current, accurate, complete or reliable. MNDM is not responsible for any damage however caused, which results, directly or indirectly, from your use of the Content. MNDM assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the Content whatsoever. Links to Other Web Sites: This Content may contain links, to Web sites that are not operated by MNDM. Linked Web sites may not be available in French. MNDM neither endorses nor assumes any responsibility for the safety, accuracy or availability of linked Web sites or the information contained on them. The linked Web sites, their operation and content are the responsibility of the person or entity for which they were created or maintained (the "Owner").
    [Show full text]
  • ST. THOMAS 2010 INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH St
    EVENTS SCHEDULE AND SITE MAP ELGIN- ST. THOMAS 2010 INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH St. Thomas, Ontario September 21-25, 2010 Proudly presented by ~· ONTARIO PLOWMEN'S ASSOCIATION ~ , AND 2010 IPM · · ' Proud Supporters of DAILY PROGRAMS - SITE MAPS - EXHIBITORS LISTING 1-H OntariO ontario mutuaIs TM •• .-. CT C :J V>OJg.~ ~g-o ::r c ::J .... ~0 Ill c tt>=a.:r Illn ::J,.... Ql -· """ -a.roro ~5.~~ .... OJ - ... V> Ill .... " ::J ... ... I~ "U s:" V>........ ... :E 3ls:(b B: o· g~ '< = 0 . ::r ::r Ill Q.ii>::J Ill Ill /1) ::t'=:l 3 ... - V> 0 10 0 OJ ~ 8 CD "" 0 -· 0 lb :E ~ 3 ::r .... !:!. 3 - ... .... 0 0 -~ 0 - V> 3 ~ CT 3 ::J re ~ "0 n Ill - V> ::J ::J c CD - · !0 n "U O~Q' l~-z-OJ ::J t\ :::s :T::J ... c ... 10 ::;· ;::;: OJ - /1) Ill 0 0 ::;· ::JQ..() " iii" :rca V> - -< '<Ill ::r- CIO c :E V> :T::J- 0 Ill Ill Ill ::J CT a. -· a. Ill ::J Ill -· ro-o - a. ~. 3-< n -.,-o CIO 11>10 "0 ~0 ,..10 "0 ::r /1) ::r -· -·q ::r- s: 9-s: ::J -·co OJ < Q. Ill OJ . -- Ill OJ a. =;· lb CT Ill fi :::S CD - ffi -< c ::r 0 10 '< V> 3 OJ ro- ::J ca .. :;::· 0 ~ Ill ,..... " -· -· c .... ::J 3 :E q V> I ::J ::J Ill .... 0 /1) -· ::J CD:r 1010 ~ 3 0 - OJ ~· 0 ... ,.... ~ I - '< a. 0 0 :E V> -· .... 0 ::TOJ'< 0- ~ 0 >< ~ OJ ::J a. ::J ,..., ::r"" CT~Il> Ill " .... a. 0 !:. .... iii Ill n ~ -,..::J 0 V> l: lb 0 a.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization and Tracking of Contaminants in Oil Tar Sediments and Assessment of Water Treatment Technologies for Their Removal
    Characterization and Tracking of Contaminants in Oil Tar Sediments and Assessment of Water Treatment Technologies for Their Removal by Fei Chen A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfillment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Applied Science in Civil Engineering Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2011 ©Fei Chen 2011 AUTHOR'S DECLARATION I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract Between 1920 and 1950 an oil gasification plant operated on a property adjacent to Kettle Creek about 0.2 km from the mouth of Port Stanley harbour on Lake Erie, Ontario, Canada. Oil tar wastes from the gasification plant were stored on the site until it was eventually abandoned in 1987. At that time the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) determined that the site was contaminated with heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and that some of this waste had been flowing into Kettle Creek through the George Street drain in the village of Port Stanley for an undetermined period of time. The site was completely remediated in 1995 and the flow of contaminated water from the drain ceased. However, sediment sampling revealed the presence of heavy metals and PAHs in Kettle Creek, the inner and outer harbours, and in Lake Erie. From a drinking water source protection perspective, there was an interest in identifying the oil tar contaminants and assessing contaminated sediment transport within the Elgin Area Water Treatment Plant intake protection zones (IPZs).
    [Show full text]
  • Municipalprofile.Pdf
    02 Location, Location, Location! Elgin County is ideally situated in the heart of The U.S. border is just a short 2-hour drive away, southwestern Ontario with immediate access to enabling fast transport and just-in-time delivery a market of over 439,000 people, including the of products to customers south of the border. cities of St. Thomas and London. More than 10 For air transportation, the St. Thomas municipal 1 million people are located within a 2 /2 hour airport is nearby, with facilities that accommodate drive. Strategically located with convenient recreational and commercial activities. access to Highways 401, 402 and 403, the cities of Windsor, the GTA, London, Woodstock, Chatham-Kent, and Brantford are all within easy reach. 03 Elgin County Situated in the heart of southwestern Ontario on the north shore of The cities of St. Thomas and London are in close proximity to Lake Erie, Elgin County has enjoyed a long and colourful history since communities in Elgin County, with St. Thomas geographically located its origins as the Talbot settlement in 1803. in the centre of it all. Although not a part of Elgin County, these two cities put the County within close or easy reach of a market of 439,000 Founded as a primarily agricultural community, the County has 1 people. More than 10 million exists within a 2 /2 hour drive, including established a solid base of manufacturing, ship building, commercial the cities of Toronto, Hamilton, Niagara Falls and Windsor. fishing, rail, and tourism industries. Key manufacturers that have done business in and around Elgin County include Ford of Canada, Steelway Population and Labour Force Building Systems, and Imperial Tobacco.
    [Show full text]
  • Elgin County
    Measuring Farmland Loss Research Project ELGIN COUNTY 1 2 Total Land Area (Census 2016) : 1,881.03 km 2 Area of Census Farms (2016) : 152,675 ha Area of Census Farms (2001): 154,907 ha Gross Farm Receipts (2016) 4: $432.6 Million Gross Farm Receipts per Hectare of Census Farm: $2,833.47 Population (2016)1: 88,978 Growth Rate 2006-20115: 2.5% Growth Rate 2011-20161: 1.7% Prime Agricultural Area Redesignated To A Development Designation (Including 241.81 ha Urban, Residential, And Employment) 2000–2017 Prime Agricultural Area Redesignated To A Rural Designation 2000–2017 0 Land Designated As A Prime Agricultural Area With A Site-Specific Amendment To 0 Allow Additional Uses 2000–2017 Total Amount of Prime Agricultural Land Loss 2000–2017 241.81 ha Total Prime Agricultural Land Loss in Relation to Census Farm Area 2001 0.16% Purpose of the Summary This county summary is part of a wider study on farmland availability in Ontario. The study quantifies the conversion of prime agricultural areas based on Official Plan Amendments in upper and single-tier municipalities across the province over a 17-year study period from 2000-2017. This summary is meant to provide detail of the findings in Elgin County. In conjunction with similar case studies from other counties/regions in Ontario, these findings will form the basis of the University of Guelph’s Measuring Farmland Conversion research project. Methods in Brief The study involved the examination of Official Plan Amendments (OPAs) approved by Elgin County, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and/or the Ontario Municipal Board for Elgin County during the years 2000—2017.
    [Show full text]
  • BAYHAM TOWNSHIP 4 - 33 Geology 4 Climate 11 Natural Vegetation 15 Soils 17 Land T,Ypes 27
    BAIHAM TOWNSHIP By Herbert Alexander Augustine A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Geogra~ in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Bachelor of Arts McMaster University February 1958 i??~J 77 '"'-~ I Y.!>ii • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express his appreciation for the advice and aid received from Dr. H. A. Wood, who supervised this study and from Dr. H. R. Thompson, both of the Department of Geography at McMaster University. Thanks and gratitude is also due to the writer's wife who typed this thesis. Mention must also be made of the co-operation received from the members of the Dominion Experimental Substation at Delhi, Ontario and also from Mr. D. Valley, the Clerk of B~ham Township. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Pages PREFACE 1 I PHYSICAL GEOORAPHY OF BAYHAM TOWNSHIP 4 - 33 Geology 4 Climate 11 Natural Vegetation 15 Soils 17 Land T,ypes 27 II HISTORY 34 - 48 Indian Period 34 Forest Removal and Early Agricultural Development 35 Extensive Agriculture 43 Intensive Agriculture 47 III PRESENT FEATURES 49 - 97 Agricultural Land Use 49 Urban Land Use 74 IV CONCLUSIONS 98 APPENDIX A 99 -108 APPENDIX B 109 BIBLIOGRAPHY 110 iii LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS River Dissection 7 Shoreline Erosion 9 Bluff on Lake Erie 9 Reforested Sand Dunes 16 Plainfield Sand Profile 16 Deltaic Sands 21 Sand Dunes 26 Vienna Land TYpe 26 Strat't'ordville Land TYpe .30 Corinth Land Type .32 Gully Erosion 5.3 Field - Cash Crop Region 5.3 Corn Field 58 Pasture - Dairy Region 58 Farm Pond 62 Erosion 62 Tobacco Field 65 Tobacco Land After Harvest 65
    [Show full text]
  • South Central Ontario Region Ontario Central South COUNTY HALDIMAND CITY of HAMILTON Middleport VE R E New Credit
    REGIONAL WELLINGTON COUNTY MUNICIPALITY South Central Ontario Region OF HALTON LAKE HURON HURON CITY OF COUNTY STRATFORD REGIONAL PERTH MUNICIPALITY COUNTY Tavistock OF WATERLOO 8 Plattsville 59 13 Centralia 3 Glen Morris East Zorra Bright Whalen Corners 8 CITY OF Mount Carmel TOWN OF HAMILTON Corbett Blandford St. George ST. MARYS Harrington 5 24A 401 Harrisburg 4 6 119 Lucan Biddulph 24 Y 13 Granton Uniondale T 23 UN Blenheim O Osborne Corners 99 Lakeside C Innerkip Clandeboye 59 32 3 5 81 7 Medina D Paris Lucan R Hamilton O Tavistock 23 International F Princeton Airport North Middlesex 24 X 59 2 403 Elginfield Parkhill Falkland O 2 20 Gobles Sylvan 7 Embro Cainsville Ailsa Craig 16 25 7 Eastwood Kintore Creditville Zorra Woodstock Brantford 17 Denfield 403 24 Airport Bryanston T Brantford 53 Birr AN Onondaga 55 28 R 18 119 B Mount Vernon 54 Thorndale 53 Burford Y 2 Cathcart Middleport Nairn Oxford Centre 23 9 NT 18 81 24 U 16 19 4 O Ilderton 59 Thames Beachville Mount Pleasant C 6 401 4 Y N Ohsweken X Ballymote Sweaburg Harley T Centre Burtch AT Keyser 27 N E Thamesford 28 U I S 17 202 O V E 20 C E New Durham 24 R L 119 Arva London Ingersoll E International Foldens 4 S D 119 E Middlesex Centre 21 Airport 2 R 45 VE ID Scotland Oakland 59 Coldstream 73 Burgessville Crumlin 9 Adelaide M Holbrook 3 Hickory Corner Poplar Hill 22 Lobo 32 New Credit 22 Melrose Hyde Park London Salford Kelvin Wilsonville Bealton Boston 402 Dorchester Putnam Norwich 18 Adelaide 29 Norwich 81 39 Nilestown Vanessa 9 19 LAMBTON
    [Show full text]